Madras High Court
National Insurance Co. vs Vadivukkarasi on 21 January, 2021
CMA(MD)No.193 of 2010
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED 21.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
C.M.A(MD)No.193 of 2010
and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2010
National Insurance Co., Ltd.,
81-D, Chetty Street,
Thiruchengodu.
.. Appellant
vs.
1.Vadivukkarasi
2.Minor Sriram
3.Minor Srikanth
4.C.Rajavelu,
Proprietor of Reena Drillers,
46-A, Main Road, Thiruvathigai,
Panrutti, Villupuram District – 605 603.
...Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act 1988 against the Judgment and Decree dated 17.12.2008
made in MCOP No.444/2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (III Additional Subordinate Judge), at Thiruchirappalli.
1/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
CMA(MD)No.193 of 2010
For Appellant : Mr.N.Murugesan
For Respondents : Mr.R.Sundar (R1 to R3)
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company
questioning the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III
Additional Subordinate Judge), Thiruchirapalli in MCOP No.444 of 2005
dated 17.12.2008.
2.The facts which are necessary for the disposal of the case, would
run thus:-
The respondents 1 to 3 as legal-heirs of the deceased Raja, filed a
claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. According to
them, the deceased Raja was a Rig Operator and he was travelling in a
bore-well driller lorry bearing registration No.TN-28-U-9588 from
Madathara to Addaikkal and when the lorry was proceeding near
Irakkuzhi, the driver of the driller lorry drove the vehicle in a rash and
negligent manner and hence, the deceased was thrown away and
http://www.judis.nic.in
CMA(MD)No.193 of 2010
sustained injuries. Immediately, he was taken to Kadaikkal Government
Hospital and where from, he was referred to Thiruvananthapuram
Medical College Hospital, however, he succumbed to injuries. He
further stated that the deceased was 30 years old at the time of accident
and he was earning Rs.5,000/- per month and the claimants are the wife
and minor children aged about 23, 2 and 1 years respectively.
3.In the counter filed by the appellant, the age, income and the
manner of accident stated in the claim petition, were disputed. It is
specifically stated that the vehicle, in which, the deceased travelled, is a
goods vehicle and the deceased was a gratuitous passenger and hence,
the Insurance Company cannot be made to liable to pay compensation.
4.Before the Tribunal, both the parties adduced oral and
documentary evidence. On appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal came
to the conclusion that the driver of the lorry caused the accident and
awarded compensation of Rs.4,53,000/- along with interest at the rate of
7.5% per annum. Aggrieved over the same, the present appeal has been
http://www.judis.nic.in
CMA(MD)No.193 of 2010
filed.
5.Mr.N.Murugesan, learned counsel for the appellant would submit
that the Tribunal has erred in interpreting Ex.R1, Policy Copy and held
that the deceased is a Rig Operator, who is also covered under the policy.
It is also contended that the oral evidence of R.W.1 and Ex.R1 were not
properly appreciated by the Tribunal.
6.Per contra, Mr.R.Sundar, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to
3/claimants justified the decision of the Tribunal and prayed for dismissal
of the appeal.
7.In the case on hand, the first claimant examined herself as P.W.1.
P.W.2 Senthilkumar, who is said to have accompanied the deceased at the
time of accident, in his evidence, has categorically stated that the driver
of the bore-well lorry was negligently and rashly drove the vehicle,
which resulted, the accident. In support of the oral evidence, Ex.P1-First
Information Report was also filed. The owner of the vehicle remained
http://www.judis.nic.in
CMA(MD)No.193 of 2010
ex-parte and the driver of the vehicle was not examined in support of the
case of the appellant. So, the Tribunal, in my considered view, rightly
held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the rig unit lorry. It is to be noted that the
claimants filed Ex.P.8-copy of the insurance policy and the same
document was also marked on the side of the appellant as Ex.R1. The
Tribunal found that the insured had taken policy covering lorry as well as
rig unit and three employees were permitted to travel in the vehicle, for
which, extra premium was also paid.
8.The deceased was found to be Rig Operator and hence, the
Tribunal has rightly rejected the contention of the appellant that they are
not liable to pay compensation. So, I find no substance in the arguments
advanced on behalf of the appellant. Though the claimants have stated
that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month and also produced
Ex.P.6-Salary Certificate, however, the Tribunal has taken the monthly
income at Rs.3,000/- per month and after deducting Rs.1000/- for his
personal and living expenses, held that the deceased has contributed Rs.
http://www.judis.nic.in
CMA(MD)No.193 of 2010
2,000/- to his family. The Tribunal by applying multiplier '17' awarded
Rs.4,08,000/- for loss of income. In addition, Rs.5,000/- was awarded
for transportation; Rs.5000/- was awarded towards funeral expenses; Rs.
15,000/- was awarded towards love and affection and Rs.20,000/- was
awarded towards loss of consortium to the first claimant. In total, the
Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,53,000/- along with interest at the rate of
7.5% per annum. In my considered view that the award amount cannot
be said to be excessive or exorbitant as alleged by the
appellant/Insurance Company. I find no merits in the appeal. Hence, the
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
9.In that view, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, as
devoid of merits. Since the appeal is dismissed, the appellant/Insurance
Company is directed to deposit the entire award amount with accrued
interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a
period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On
such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the award amount,
less the amount already withdrawn, if any, together with proportionate
http://www.judis.nic.in
CMA(MD)No.193 of 2010
interest and costs as apportioned by the Tribunal. The first claimant is
permitted to withdraw her share after filing a memo, along with a copy of
this order. Further, the Tribunal is directed to deposit the share of the
minor claimants in any one of the nationalised banks, as fixed deposit
under the Cumulative Deposit Scheme, till the minors attain the age of
major and hand over the fixed deposit certificate to the mother of the
minor claimants. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
21.01.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
skn
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
(III Additional Subordinate Judge),
at Thiruchirappalli.
K.KALYANASUNDARAM,J
skn
2.The Record Keeper,
http://www.judis.nic.in
CMA(MD)No.193 of 2010
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
JUDGMENT MADE IN
C.M.A(MD)No.193 of 2010
and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2010
21.01.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
